# C_2018301EN.01004202.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/42

---

Action brought on 5 July 2018 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

(Case T-414/18)

(2018/C 301/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 12 April 2018 on the calculation of the 2018 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03), including the Annex thereto, in any event in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 12 April 2018 on the calculation of the 2018 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03), including the Annex thereto, in any event in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant; and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

| 1. | Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to incomplete notification of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to incomplete notification of the contested decision.

| 2. | Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state sufficient reasons in the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state sufficient reasons in the contested decision.

| 3. | Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to the absence of a hearing and the failure to observe the right to a fair hearing. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to the absence of a hearing and the failure to observe the right to a fair hearing.

| 4. | Unlawfulness of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) as a basis for the contested decision.
  In the context of the fourth plea in law, the applicant submits that Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of, as well as Annex I to, Delegated Regulation 2015/63 — provisions which form the basis for the contested decision — establish an opaque system for the setting of contributions, which is contrary to Articles 16, 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and pursuant to which compliance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter and observance of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty are not ensured. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Unlawfulness of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) as a basis for the contested decision.

In the context of the fourth plea in law, the applicant submits that Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of, as well as Annex I to, Delegated Regulation 2015/63 — provisions which form the basis for the contested decision — establish an opaque system for the setting of contributions, which is contrary to Articles 16, 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and pursuant to which compliance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter and observance of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty are not ensured.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

---